<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Cash-payment disallowance requires proof of daily payments to one person; additional evidence prompted fresh adjudication.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104252</link>
    <description>Cash-payment disallowance under section 40A(3) depends on whether payments exceeding the prescribed daily limit were made to a single person, not merely on a voucher exceeding that limit. A consolidated voucher may record separate payments to multiple persons, each within the limit, and therefore may not establish a contravention. Supporting material omitted by an erstwhile tax consultant was admitted as additional evidence because the first appellate order had been passed without it. The ex parte appellate order and cash-payment disallowance were set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication, with all contentions left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 08:12:22 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 08:12:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=926275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Cash-payment disallowance requires proof of daily payments to one person; additional evidence prompted fresh adjudication.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104252</link>
      <description>Cash-payment disallowance under section 40A(3) depends on whether payments exceeding the prescribed daily limit were made to a single person, not merely on a voucher exceeding that limit. A consolidated voucher may record separate payments to multiple persons, each within the limit, and therefore may not establish a contravention. Supporting material omitted by an erstwhile tax consultant was admitted as additional evidence because the first appellate order had been passed without it. The ex parte appellate order and cash-payment disallowance were set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication, with all contentions left open.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 08:12:22 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104252</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>